It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Argument from Incredulity is an informal logical fallacy where a participant draws a positive conclusion from an inability to imagine or believe the converse. The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:
I can't imagine how P could possibly be false
A simple variation on this is
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true
This is a fallacy because someone else with more imagination may find a way. This fallacy is therefore a simple variation of argument from ignorance. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time.
Antagonist: I can't imagine how bread rises without fairies; therefore, I believe in faeries.
Antagonist: How could that dowser have made the stick move without paranormal powers? Obviously dowsing has to work.
Antagonist: I can't believe the medium figured all that stuff out about me without spiritual aid; she must be in touch with the paranormal.
Antagonist (Eugene Cernan, the last man to walk on the moon): "No one in their right mind can look in the stars and the eternal blackness everywhere and deny the spirituality of the experience, nor the existence of a Supreme Being. There were moments when I honestly felt that I could reach out my hand, just as the pilot John Magee says in his poem 'High Flight', and touch the face of God." (Source: Observer Magazine, 16 June 2002, cited by Julian Baggani)
In general, no inferences can be drawn from a lack of evidence. This is particularly true when the lack of evidence is merely personal incredulity and other potential explanations, are well-known to others, such as the existence of the ideomotor effect as an explanation of dowsing, or the standard cold reading stage technique as an explanation of many mediums' performances.
Argument from incredulity is also a fallacy in the hands of scientists as well; as Clarke's First Law puts it, "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
Originally posted by wcitizen
I respect your freedom to think and believe what you choose. I respect mine to differ.
As a citizen whose rights are being eroded at an alarming rate based on the Official Conspiracy Theory put out by the Government, I need to see a transparent, unbiased, non-corrupt, thorough criminal investigation.
They will not authorise this. That is suspect.
Originally posted by WashingtonGrewHemp
It was Mossad. Israel had to get us over there to defend them against Iraq and Afghanistan, which posed a risk to their security. Simple.
I honestly thought that the TSA always existed. Oops.
Buildings in heavily populated areas are built in a way that they collapse inward.
this is NOT the first time a building collapsed due to fire.
it simply indicates that buildings that lose a large amount of structural integrity will most likely fall onto their own footprint.
If you told me that aliens fired a laser beam to bring down the building, i would believe that over explosives
We are also talking about a LOT of weight, causing the building to collapse faster as it progresses.
There are also no signs of explosives being used throughout the building.
After watching countless controlled demolitions, NONE of them looked anything remotely close to the collapse of WTC 7.
The only people hearing explosions are the people inside of the buildings, yet for some reason people outside recording cannot hear them?
There is still no concrete proof that there was a controlled demolition.
But because the floors only hold enough weight to hold "ONE" floor above,
having 30+ stories fall will give way and cause a systematic pancake collapse. This is not an outrageous claim
no sound during the collapse of explosives going off.
Stephen jones with a bag of powder is not evidence.
Originally posted by demonseed
I always had doubts in my mind about the conspiracy theories, but in general i felt that many questions had been un-answered and in that regard i gave my credence to the 9/11 conspiracy theories and what the "truthers" stood for.
However, i recently had a change of heart. At this point, there are too many 9/11 conspiracy theory loopholes that in all honesty add up a million times worse than even the "official" story.
Originally posted by boniknik
As I have asked again and again, who is more far fetched? The 9/11 truthers or the OS believers?
There had to be enough steel on the 81st level of the south tower to support another 29 stories. But we are supposed to believe a hydrocarbon fire could weaken that much steel in an hour but then our engineering schools don't talk about how much was there.
Originally posted by demonseed
As for the explosions people are posting. You are posting videos of the collapse of a skyscraper. The video shows a building crumbling and loud sounds occurring as it fails down. Did you expect a hi-rise to make absolutely no sound as it fell?
The point im making here, though, is that the "explosions" are occurring as the building is collapsing. If you watch every demolition video, the explosions are heard seconds before the building actually collapses. However, the "explosions" you are claiming occur AS the building is collapsing.